Search form

For Immediate Release

Media Tell Obama--Don't Be a Lefty Like Clinton

Rewriting The '94 Election To Find A Centrist Moral

WASHINGTON - Immediately after Barack Obama was
pronounced the victor in the 2008 presidential election, corporate
media began to tell him how he ought to govern--in most cases, urging
him to hew toward the center. To support their argument, many
journalists pointed to President Bill Clinton's first term to find
lessons in centrism for Obama. But are media getting the history wrong?

In that "unhappy first year in office," wrote the Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus (11/5/08),
"Democratic congressional leaders pushed a new president to the
left--leading to the party's loss of both houses in the midterm
elections of 1994."

"Though Democrats now are in a position to steamroll their policies
into place without much regard to the Republican minority, both history
and the national mood suggest a bit of bipartisanship would be wise,"
wrote Gerald Seib in the Wall Street Journal (11/5/08). Seib saw a liberal healthcare plan as Clinton's downfall:

Mr. Clinton won in 1992 with friendly
Democratic majorities in Congress strikingly similar to those Sen.
Obama will enjoy: 258 House seats and 57 Senate seats. He did, in fact,
reach across the aisle to Republicans initially to balance the budget
and promote free trade--policies that had durable and lasting support
precisely because they had a bipartisan foundation.

But he then fell into the trap of leaning on the power of Democratic
votes, and ignoring the animosity of minority Republicans, to try to
push through the single biggest domestic effort of his first term, a
wholesale remaking of the nation's healthcare system. It was an
overreach, which Republicans drove home by reminding voters that Mr.
Clinton had won office with just 43 percent of the popular vote, thanks
to the votes siphoned away by independent candidate Ross Perot.

The backlash was instant, and painful. Democrats lost 54 House seats
and 10 Senate seats in 1994, just two years after Mr. Clinton took
office.

The experience of President Bill Clinton's
rocky early months--remember gays in the military? the BTU
tax?--suggests the steep political price of governing in a way that is,
or seems, skewed to the left. This risk is particularly acute for
Obama, whose opponents have painted him as a leftist extremist. The
good news is that his advisers seem exquisitely aware of this trap and
determined not to fall into it.

Dan Balz of the Washington Post (11/5/08)
turned to former Clinton adviser William Galston, who suggested that
rather than following the example of FDR's New Deal or Lyndon Johnson's
Great Society, he should instead heed the warning of "1993, the start
of Clinton's first term, when Democrats pushed another liberal agenda,
only to find that the country was resistant. Within two years,
Democrats lost their congressional majorities." Galston, Balz reported,

said there was little evidence heading into
yesterday's balloting that the country had taken a sharp left turn.
"It's hard to say substantively what mandate Obama and the Democrats
have gotten," he said. "They've gotten a chance to make their case."

Of course, it's hardly surprising that a committed centrist would argue
that Clinton's first term failure was that he was too liberal; Brookings
identifies him as a longtime senior adviser to the Democratic
Leadership Council (DLC), a corporate-backed group that exists to push
the Democratic Party to the right.

It's a long-standing myth, and a useful one for centrists and
conservatives who wish to see Democrats shift right. But there's very
little evidence that it's actually true; in fact, it's more likely that
Clinton's abandonment of leftist campaign promises led to the 1994
reversal of power in Washington.

As several commentators have pointed out, Democratic voter turnout
declined in 1994, while Republican turnout increased. Rick Perlstein (Boston Review, Summer/04)
pointed to political scientist Martin Wattenberg, who showed that
"registered nonvoters in 1994 were consistently more pro-Democratic
than were voters on a variety of measures of partisanship"--which
suggests, wrote Perlstein, that "the real triumph of the Republicans in
1994 was not ginning up any kind of new national consensus on their
issues, but in motivating their own core voters to create a temporary
mirage of such a consensus."

And why did Democratic voters not show up to the polls in '94? It's
doubtful that it's because Clinton went too far to the left. According
to Public Citizen (cited in Huffington Post, 9/21/07),
polling showed people were actually "upset about NAFTA's passage and
specifically about local representatives' support of NAFTA." NAFTA,
remember, is exactly the sort of "centrist," bipartisan policy that
pundits urge Obama to pursue in order to reassure voters. All evidence
suggests that for Clinton, it actually had the opposite effect--despite
the Wall Street Journal's claim that it had "durable and lasting support."

Clinton also moved to the right on the two programs that the Washington Post's
Marcus cites as scaring off voters--he had promised during the campaign
to allow gays to serve openly in the military, and he dropped the
proposal pushed by Al Gore for an energy tax. Meanwhile, Clinton pushed
through "welfare reform" and dramatically scaled back his promised
domestic programs at the urging of deficit hawk Democrats.

As FAIR has argued in the past (Extra!, 1-2/95),
this failure to address the economic stagnation that afflicted
working-class and minority voters is the most plausible explanation for
the Democrats' 1994 woes; while media raved about the "rising economy,"
real wages for the bottom 75 percent of workers continued their
downward fall in 1993 and stayed flat in 1994.

Former Clinton official Mike Lux argued (Open Left, 11/6/08)
that when the Clinton administration finally pushed healthcare to the
fore, "we failed far more because of our own political mistakes,
especially on not pursuing a more populist anti-insurance industry
message, than because voters thought we were being too liberal." Lux's
post-'94 election poll analysis found that "there was a 22-point
difference in terms of Democratic support (in the wrong direction, of
course) between those who voted [in '94] and those who had in 1992 but
didn't in 1994, thereby sealing our fate." And "disproportionately
large among those non-voters were working-class and unmarried women."

The move to the center overjoyed many in the media, but it seemed to
take the steam out of the voters who put them in office back in 1992.
Obama and the Democrats may well learn from the mistakes of Clinton's
first term, but they would be wise not to take history lessons from
corporate media.

###

FRIENDS: Now More Than Ever

Independent journalism has become the last firewall against government and corporate lies. Yet, with frightening regularity, independent media sources are losing funding, closing down or being blacked out by Google and Facebook. Never before has independent media been more endangered. If you believe in Common Dreams, if you believe in people-powered independent media, please support us now and help us fight—with truths—against the lies that would smother our democracy. Please help keep Common Dreams alive and growing. Thank you. -- Craig Brown, Co-founder

Further

Lookit These Kids Redux: Over 200 kids in Pennsylvania who defied their school's ban on joining last week's nationwide walkout transformed their ostensible punishment into Civil Disobedience 101 by turning their detention into a silent, moving sit-in. With the community offering support - and pizza - the #Pennridge 225 linked arms, wore the names of Parkland victims and declared the consequences of their actions "a badge of honor" to show "we’ll stand up for what is right."